To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Paul Street's Blog » Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Paul Street's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
Bio:         Paul Street is an independent radical-democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker based in Iowa City, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois.&nbs... (More)

All Street Blogs

Recent Street Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books

Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Paul Street at Dec 20, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Are any other Americans out there shaking their head in dumb amazement over George W. Bush's latest statements about why he ordered a war of aggression on Iraq in March, 2003? The Bush administration initially sold that war on the grounds that it was required for our protection. We needed to attack, Bush argued, to stop a reckless Iraqi regime that was a serious threat to assault us and/or our allies with “weapons of mass destruction [WMD].” That regime, the administration claimed, was linked somehow to 9/11, al Qaeda, and extremist Islamic terrorism in general. Never mind that Iraq was an imaginary danger. Thanks in large part to the initial Gulf War (1990-91) and subsequent U.S.-led sanctions, Saddam Hussein's government was a terribly weakened state. It was hardly a threat to even its immediate neighbors. Its capacity to engage in significant military action, with or without WMD, was minimal. It's supposed awesome stockpiles of unconventional weaponry were non-existent, as Scott Ritter and numerous other knowledgeable observers reported. Never mind that there was no discernible connection between Saddam's secular Baathist regime and al Qaeda or other Muslim terror network. Osama bin-Laden were in fact bitter enemies and the White House's notion of the latter “handing off” nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (even if he had such weapons) – to the former was frankly outrageous. And never mind that it would have been suicidal for Saddam to attack the U.S. or one its allied states in the region. There was no evidence to suggest that Iraq's calculating dictator had abandoned his famous instincts of self-preservation. Bush's justifications for war were outlandish, something that was well understood around the world and which is now widely acknowledged even here in the U.S. Seeking to recover from the domestic public relations fiasco that his war on Iraq has become, Bush is now saying two peculiar things about why he ordered invasion. His first claim is that “much” of the “intelligence” he received about Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 “turned out to be wrong. As president,” Bush acknowledged Wednesday, “I'm responsible for the decision to go to war with Iraq, and I'm also for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities.” Never mind that millions across the planet were fully aware from the start that the WMD argument was bogus. The second curious thing that Bush says now is that the “wrong intelligence” he received on Iraq wasn't actually why he invaded that nation anyway. In an interview with FOX News Wednesday, “Bush said he ‘absolutely' would have invaded Iraq [even] he had known then that Mr. Hussein did not have banned weapons” (Richard W. Stevenson, “Bush Says U.S. Needs Patience on Iraq War; Admits Errors,” New York Times, 15 December 2005, p. A18). That is a fascinating thing for the president to say to anyone who is familiar with what he said in early 2003. During his Saturday morning radio address of March 8th that year, to give one exmaple, Bush justified a war he had already decided on by insisting that “Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses,” Bush elaborated, “weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.” “The attacks of September the 11, 2001,” Bush continued, “showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction…. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” Now how are we supposed to interpret these and numerous other similar and related statements by Bush and his officials during late 2002 and early 2003? Did Bush invade Iraq because of “bad intelligence” or didn't he? Did the White House select or otherwise “cook” the “intelligence” to favor its supposed real project of spreading “freedom” to Iraq? Did the White House find it necessary to invent a new pretext (the export of “freedom”) when the (supposedly surprising) absence of WMD became apparent? Did it, as most of the world thinks, invade Iraq for reasons that had little to do with either WMD or spreading its notion of liberty and more to do with Iraqis' enormous strategic stockpile of, well, oil? The most depressing thing is the calm way that dominant (“mainstream”) media relays Bush's latest rhetorical spin on why he “went into Iraq.” Bush's bold statement that he would have ordered the occupation of Mesopotamia even without evidence of Iraqi WMD is reported in remarkably un-astonished terms at the end of an article on the 19th page of a recent edition of the “liberal” New York Times. The respectful title of this item is “Bush Says U.S. Needs Patience on Iraq War; Admits Errors.” A more morally responsible and truthful title would have been this: “Bush Says False Rationalizations Were Irrelevant to War's Launch.” The Times and other “mainstream” media outlets may have apologized for their initial “gullibility” in covering Bush's initial WMD claims. But excessively uncritical, power-serving, and deception-normalizing Never Mind War Coverage is still all-too entrenched at the commanding heights of the news industry. Apologies are nice but what people really want after they've been wronged is a change of behavior. One good way for the media to show real remorse for uncritically relaying Bush's original war pretexts would be to critically attack the administration's current claim that it wants a free and independent Iraq. That's the last thing the Bush White House and its powerful corporate allies and sponsors want to see since such an Iraq would be thoroughly unwilling to allow its economy to put for sale to foreign capital and to let the U.S. maintain a permanent military presence on Mesopotamian soil.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (19)

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Dec 28, 2005 19:38 PM
joeblogs56: Your point is well taken regarding the US's failure tactically in Iraq. The neocons running the country right now have made many such blunders, many of which are down to their being full of themselves, but also real mis-judgements about the Iraqi people. But the strategy remains the same, and though battles have been lost (tactical errors), the war is far from over as the US has proven time and again over many years now that it is a patient player in this game. Right now I fear the worst - that the US will indeed create a world hegenomy in the next 10-20 years. My hope is that the leftist movements in Latin America, the persistence of the Muslim world, and the rising competitive powers in the Far East will provide enough of a deterrent. But without major reform of the political structures of the world - removal of the political party system - and a massive re-writing of national and international corporate law and international trade agreements, I see little hope for this world as we plunge into an economic and environmental nightmare. We in the West are not inclined to sacrifice our current or future standard of living to save this world. If we do decide to do so, it will likely be under conditions of high duress and thus, too late.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Dec 25, 2005 11:40 AM
The following are generally accepted by most students of current events: 1. World carbon-based energy sources will soon, if not already, peak. 2. The world's supply of fresh water is dwindling for various reasons, 3. The burgeoning world population will cause great competition for the above and will produce great pressure on existing supplies of food and its distribution networks. The above have been recognised by those who really run the United States for many years now. The neo-conservatives, flush with power, actually publicly released the great strategy in the form of a white paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" in September 2000. This document outlines a strategy for gaining complete and unchallenged military control of land, air, sea and even space to protect American "interests" in the days to come. Meanwhile the USA will work to "free" markets in developing counties so that their international corporate interests can capture and control the world's economy and productive resources. We can argue all we want about the stupidity and lawlessness of the Bush administration, but the fact is that he and those who lurk behind him are carrying out their strategy with near perfection.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Dec 25, 2005 08:02 AM
OK, fine, paul. But you have been reading from and are writing to, those of the fauxLeft-democratic party Echo Chamber. If you want to make a better living as a professional activist, that keen and dandy, and will work just fine. But if you want to actually CHANGE America, you have to link this Bush-Iraq-WMD nonsense to all those other similar outrage incidents and similar elite manipulations that started all the other wars. Or are you afraid that such a writing will not meet with as much favor in the demo-fauxLeft echo chamber?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Craggy, Mc23 at Dec 25, 2005 02:49 AM
Just a response to joeblogs56.... You appear to have misunderstood my point. I agree with you that "Blair is a proven liar". My view, which I made clear in my first point, is that it is not up to Bush & Blair to unilaterally enforce resolution 1441. Even if Saddam had breached 1441 it is up to the UN Security Council alone to decide this & then authorise military force if necessary

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Man, Laughing at Dec 24, 2005 05:23 AM
`Your claim that Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbours is belied inter alia by his material support for Palestinian suicide bombers.` Every single arabian country supports Palestinaian suicide bombers, because the vast majority of arabians support palistinian suicide bombers. Should we invade every single arabian country on that basis? Moreover palistinian SBs only target iseral, not any of Iraq`s neiboring countries. Your analysis falls flat. `The analysis is superficial; the real problem is that there is not a single Arab democracy. You no doubt think that that too is the exclusive fault of the West, but I think only sectarians and dogmatists really believe that.` Secretarians and dogmatists with an accurate sence of history. Its a historical fact that we overthrow their democracys, its affirmed and admitted to by everyone. `democracies in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would sell oil to the west` And thats the problem. If we cant controll Iraq`s oil output then we are dependent on them. Not only that, but we cant put choke-holds on China and Europe.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Street, Paul at Dec 23, 2005 21:10 PM
Keir I add that "zubub" is disregarding inter-imperial world capitalist rivalry. "zubub" seems to think the Bush administration has no nationally selfish aim...it just wants to open up oil resources for the entire world. This strikes me as naive. It seems likely that one of the motives behind the occupation of Iraq is the calculation that America's fading economic power vis-a-vis both Europe and East Asia (an old story that is deepened by the dysfunctional war on Iraq) can be ameliorated by the placement of an imperial boot on the Persian Gulf oil spigot. It's a desparate gambit wherein Uncle Sam tried to use its one arm of truly unchallenged hegemony (armed force) to buy some time before his full political-economic transcendence by competitively superior and relatedy more socially functional capitalist states, which z, likes to describe as democracies. China is the best bet for next hegemon and it is hardly a democracy. Is Singapore a democracy? Somewhere in his note zubub says that only dogmatists think the west/U.S. has undermined democracy in the Arab world. Here's a carefully argued book for him: Rashid Khalidi, Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East (Beacon Press, 2004).

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Street, Paul at Dec 23, 2005 05:21 AM
zubub says "whether Bush lied or not is a secondary question to whether it is good that Saddam was overthrown." This turns a core democratic principle on its head. The democratic ideal upholds popular rule and government as desirable in and of itself, not merely as one of different possible means to a desirable policy end. According to Jefferson, indeed, it was better for the citizenry to make occasionally mistaken policy than for their supposed superiors among the elite to make always correct policy. To argue that lying to the populace to manufacture consent to a given policy is justified by one positive end or outcome (in this case the removal of Saddam Hussein)is to embrace an authoritarian rejection of democracy. It is to justify tryanny. The tyrannical deception that zubub seems willing to tolerate was required, Bush and Blair (and their respective imperial cabals) concluded, because large numbers of American and British citizens believed that invading Iraq would carry would be more negative than positive on the whole. Those citizens were correct and today even many elite Americans of thoroughly imperial sentiment have abundant reasons to regret Bush's terrible action.

Reply this comment

Person

By Amicusforlife, Gladiator777 at Dec 23, 2005 05:08 AM
This is a time when the democracy of the United States will be put to the test. We have an administration which has committed crimes. If the system works, the Bush administration will not survive the term. If the system is no longer working, then we will continue on this ride to hell.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Leemeade, Meade at Dec 23, 2005 00:21 AM
People should realize (Rethugs most of all) that this crap will boomerang back on US sooner or later. Some other regime, like China or Russia will use these same justifications to subdue their perceived 'enemy'. Knowing the unending hypocrisy that is conservatism, expect a full outcry.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Dec 22, 2005 15:36 PM
The last chance was pure Bush bull. Hussein had already proven to have no WMD's, so how was he to "disarm". There was another condition to the last chance, Hussein had to leave his office and the country. Which it turns out, later we found out, he was willing to do and wanted to take Bush's offer. But chimpy reneced on his "deal". The same thing happened in Afganistan before the invasion, with the talaban accpting Bush's offer of handing Bin Laden over, and then BUsh changing his mind on his "deal". Pretty much everything out of his mouth can be considered a lie or questionable at best. This is the most dishonest government ever.

Reply this comment

4101

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Servo, Tom at Dec 22, 2005 10:12 AM
OK, so if I got this right then Bush didn;t need a pretense of WMDs to invade? Because my memory may be wrong, but I remember him saying Saddam had a last chance to disclose.... meaning, if Saddam did not have any WMDs (which we now know), then Bush would not have incaded. These statements ("last chance" and "woulda done it anyway") contradict each other. One of them must be a lie. His previous statement of one last chance to avoid a war was disingenuous (a lie) is statement 2 is true. Statement 2 is a lie if statement 1 is true. So when did he lie?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Dec 22, 2005 03:25 AM
Bush was invading, regardless what Blair said or didn't say. The whole WMD was a charade in any case, and they wouldn't get caught because it's impossible to prove a negative. Even if Hussein (to keep calling him "Saddam" is submission to propaganda) was to give up WMD if he had them, they would have invented another pretext - more WMDs are hidden, whatever. It was a trap and there was nothing Hussein could do to prevent the criminal attack.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Craggy, Mc23 at Dec 22, 2005 03:16 AM
Just to add a couple of points from a UK perspective regarding the legality of the Iraq invasion: 1. According to International law only the UN Security Council can decide whether one of its resolutions has not been complied with. In other words it is illegal for one or more countries to invoke a war on the pretext of enforcing such a resolution 2. And secondly a speech our PM Tony Blair made before the invasion shows the weight that our government put onto the WMD pretext for war... Manchester News Tuesday, 25th February 2003 Tony Blair has offered Saddam Hussein the chance to stay in power in Iraq - if he swiftly hands over weapons of mass destruction. But in a Commons statement the Prime Minister made it clear that if the Baghdad dictator refuses, a massive military strike will go ahead. He told MPs that to let Saddam keep his weapons would show "folly and weakness" and it would be a "dangerous moment" for the world. In an effort to head off a rebellion among Labour MPs in the Commons tomorrow, Mr Blair launched a push for peace and made an astonishing offer to Saddam. "I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully," he said.' The fact that he is basically saying that without the existing WMD 'threat'he would not attempt to justify Saddam's removal seems like an important fact that has been barely mentioned since.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Dec 21, 2005 20:38 PM
Zubub wrote: You say that the US is actually opposed to a democracy emerging in Iraq because it wants a military base there. Why would it need a military base there if the region were dominated by peaceful democracies such as Japan, Singapore, or the nations of the European Union? The short answer is that any kind of a real democratic government in Iraq would instantly kick out the Americans and their bases, their corporations and institute a state that would not be tolerated in a million years by the US.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Amicusforlife, Gladiator777 at Dec 21, 2005 20:03 PM
Conclusion of the majority of the world- Illegal war! Time to move on and look at what doors have been opened. The rules have changed and I see before this decade is out wars that will make Iraq look like what it is- armed robbery! There will be more... We are doomed to see more of this. The pieces are being moved into place for conflict all over the world. As we roll over the peak of oil production we will see energy wars, water wars, and other resource wars. That is the door that has been opened. Instead of sitting down in some international forum and deciding what is the best action for the future of life on this planet we are acting like crazed people on a sinking ship fighting for that shrinking part of the boat above water. The band may play on, but the ship is sinking!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Ess, Shyela at Dec 21, 2005 13:51 PM
"Did it, as most of the world thinks, invade Iraq for reasons that had little to do with either WMD or spreading its notion of liberty and more to do with Iraqis' enormous strategic stockpile of, well, oil?" Yes, I think that is the primary reason for the invasion and Bush himself admitted it last summer. "Published on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 by the Associated Press Bush Gives New Reason for Iraq War Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists By Jennifer Loven" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0831-01.htm I don't know how much press coverage and debate that announcement received, but it is the one believable statement he made to justify the invasion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Henryjacks, Hjacks at Dec 21, 2005 10:06 AM
Bush's comments that he would have invaded Iraq regardless of WMD's shows that he is either ignorant of the law or does in fact believe he is the law and doesn't have to follow it. That all international agreements regarding war supported by the US restrict the use of force to defense against real and imminent threats seems to hold no place in his thinking. What he is saying is this: "I went to war illegally, but I don't care. I would do it again even if I knew it was done illegally." Now, if I shot a known madman because I believed he had a gun and might kill me with it, I'd have a hard enough time claiming self-defense. But if I went to trial and said from the dock, "I don't care if he had a gun or not, or if he was going to kill me or not, I just wanted to shoot him," then clearly I have no regard for the rule of law and justice requires my imprisonment. These are war crimes Bush is admitting to. If justice is for all, he should be on trial for them. That he is not is a failure of justice and radically changes what is acceptable reasons for going to war in the eyes of the world.

Reply this comment

4101

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Servo, Tom at Dec 21, 2005 09:39 AM
darn.I'm pretty high and right now, and besides the big words and legnthy clauses, I offer this... 1) to be against an autocrat does not make one a democrat. Think of King Henry V v Louis whashisnumber. 2) Those countries already sell oil to the west, and they are not democracies, so the logic fails. Bin Laden was against any man-powered made govt , becuase he was a theocrat. God rules (in their eyes and by their hands). He lied, get over it. He played some of us like a harp from hell, and we (myself included in the "some of us" before") *should* have known better! Just come out and say what it is that so many jack bootted brown shirt lovin slice of menhoods you think you are would *really* love to say in public and everyone goes "yeeeeeeeeeeeah!" say what you *really* want to say:"So what? Whatcha goin to do about it? We don't break the law! We are the law!"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Never Mind: The Recent Spin on Why Bush Invaded Iraq

By Sophphilo, Zubub at Dec 21, 2005 07:54 AM
Whether Bush lied or not is a secondary question to whether it is good that Saddam was overthrown. Your claim that Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbours is belied inter alia by his material support for Palestinian suicide bombers. You may of course be of the opinion that this support was a good thing, in which case you should go on record as saying so. You say that the US is actually opposed to a democracy emerging in Iraq because it wants a military base there. Why would it need a military base there if the region were dominated by peaceful democracies such as Japan, Singapore, or the nations of the European Union? The analysis is superficial; the real problem is that there is not a single Arab democracy. You no doubt think that that too is the exclusive fault of the West, but I think only sectarians and dogmatists really believe that. As Osama bin Laden aptly put it, What will we do with the oil, drink it? Bin Laden is no democrat (despite idiotic claims by some that he despises the Saudi regime because it is not autocratic), but his general point is sound and can be transposed: democracies in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would sell oil to the west just as Japan, India, and Taiwan do prodigious business with the US.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (19)

Loading_border